Dafur: What are we waiting for?

[basso]

I'm not sure i agree with all his criticism of the administration, indeed Bush has done far more than anyone else in the world, but if what's happening in Darfur is Genocide, as Powell called it, our response has been completely ineffectual. this would be an excellent opportunity for multilateralism between the US and France. surely we can spare some fighters and an AWACS to enforce a no-fly zone in support of perhaps 5k "crack" french paratroops. People are dying- where's the leadership necessary to get this done? why are democrats silent on this issue? it a perfect, and perfectly legitimate, opportunity to bash bush. Africans not worth anybody's time?

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006463

--
NO MORE RWANDAS
The Darfur Genocide
Enough excuses. The time to act is now.

BY DON CHEADLE AND JOHN PRENDERGAST
Thursday, March 24, 2005

As we sat in a refugee camp in Chad listening to Fatima describe how most of her family was killed by Sudanese government-sponsored Janjaweed militias, we found it incomprehensible that the world could not muster the political will necessary to protect her surviving family members or to hold the killers accountable.

Since returning from our visit to Chad and Darfur in late January, we have pored over the rationales the U.S. government has used for its tepid response, and have found no fewer than 10 lame excuses.

First, when former Secretary of State Colin Powell famously called what was happening in Darfur "genocide," he said we were already doing all we could to counter it. In the six months since he and President Bush used the term, however, not one punitive measure has been imposed on the orchestrator of the atrocities--the Sudanese regime. And as the African Union (AU) struggles to deploy 2,000 troops to Darfur, a region the size of France, the French government recently announced that it will deploy 41,000 police in Paris if it is chosen as the Olympics site for 2012. Doing all we can?

Second, U.S. officials say that if they pressure the regime any harder, it would implode and the consequences would be grave. Graver than what this administration has called genocide? Regardless, this is specious, as the regime is one of the strongest governments in Africa and in no danger of collapse.

Third, U.S. officials have said since the beginning of the Darfur war that they needed to first focus on nailing a deal between the regime in Khartoum and southern-based rebels, which would in turn have immediate and positive impacts on the situation in Darfur. This approach led Khartoum to delay signing until the beginning of this year; since then the situation in Darfur has only deteriorated.

Fourth, the U.S. has repeatedly said, to its credit, that justice must be done for the crimes that have been committed in Darfur. But it has sliced the legs out from under that sentiment by opposing referral of the Darfur case to the International Criminal Court, the ideal locus for timely and cost-effective accountability.

Fifth, the U.S. has said that the Darfurian rebels, not the government, have recently been the biggest obstacle to forward movement. Evidence of continued government aerial bombing and Janjaweed raping has largely silenced this excuse.

Sixth, U.S. officials say the deployment of the AU troops is all that is needed. But AU monitors in Darfur themselves say they are largely spectators in the face of continuing atrocities, and every Darfurian we talked to on the ground believes a much larger force with a much stronger mandate is needed to truly protect civilians.

Seventh, the U.S. and its fellow donor nations focus mostly in their public statements on how much emergency aid is being provided, not saying that these are just humanitarian band-aids being applied over gaping human rights wounds.

Eighth, the U.S. often argues that it cannot do more because China and Russia will veto more potent multilateral action on Darfur. But no one has tested this threat. It is time to play diplomatic chicken with Beijing and Moscow. The U.S. and U.K. should press for a vote on a strong U.N. Resolution with real consequences and dare anyone to support crimes against humanity by vetoing it.

Ninth, the U.S. has argued that constructive engagement needs to be employed with Khartoum, rather than a punitive and isolationist approach. However, tough policy has a proven track record with the Sudanese regime: In the 1990s, the Security Council briefly punished Sudan for its support of terrorism, and the regime quickly changed its behavior. Despite this evidence the Security Council has dithered over the past two years to sanction the regime as the crisis in Darfur has intensified. This week's move by the U.S. to repackage a resolution it's tabled since mid-February will only delay action in Darfur further.

Tenth, and most insidiously, the U.S. is arguing that the circumstances in Darfur are actually getting better. Facing increased incidences of rape and pillage, continuing aerial attacks, and, worst, a credible threat of famine, most Darfurians would beg to differ.

So what is the real reason why the U.S. has not responded as it should have? The truth is that combating crimes against humanity is simply not considered a national security issue. We don't want to burn our leverage on Sudan in the face of issues such as Iraq, Iran and Syria.

The only antidote to this searing truth--the only way the U.S. will take the kind of leadership necessary to end the horrors for Fatima and her people--is for there to be a political cost to inaction. As American citizens increasingly raise their voices and write their letters about Darfur, the temperature has indeed risen. But not enough. We need to make it a little warmer, a little more uncomfortable for those politicians who would look away. Just a few more degrees. Just a few more thousand letters. It is, frankly, that simple.

Mr. Cheadle was nominated for an Academy Award for his performance in the film "Hotel Rwanda." Mr. Prendergast is an adviser to the International Crisis Group (www.crisisgroup.org).

[MadMax]

i don't know what the answer is. but clearly not doing anything isn't working.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by MadMax
i don't know what the answer is. but clearly not doing anything isn't working.

Unfortunately, with our military spread as thin as it is, we just don't have the manpower to do anything about it. One of the unintended consequences of our elective war.

[FranchiseBlade]

This is a situation where I'd like to see a U.S. lead United Nations peace keeping force go in there and put a stop to this. This is horrible, and we have been wrong in the past for not stopping things when we could. We'd be doubly guilty after we should have learned our lesson.

Andy does make a good point about our military being spread thin at the moment. I'd also like to add that our previous actions aren't going to encourage other nations to jump in line with us on military involvements.

This is horribly sad.

[DaDakota]

Shouldn't the rest of the civilized world help out at some point?

DD

[basso]

there are troops to do this, france has them, germany, the AU, hell south africa does. we could provide aircover and logistical support. i'm amazed (not really) that european countries would allow innocent africans to die because they're pissed at bush over iraq.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by andymoon
Unfortunately, with our military spread as thin as it is, we just don't have the manpower to do anything about it. One of the unintended consequences of our elective war.

Do you have any actual proof to back up this claim, or is this just your "hunch"?

[MadMax]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
This is a situation where I'd like to see a U.S. lead United Nations peace keeping force go in there and put a stop to this. This is horrible, and we have been wrong in the past for not stopping things when we could. We'd be doubly guilty after we should have learned our lesson.

Andy does make a good point about our military being spread thin at the moment. I'd also like to add that our previous actions aren't going to encourage other nations to jump in line with us on military involvements.

This is horribly sad.

side debate...why are we always the ones forced to take the lead in stamping out crap like this?

"well..the US is spread too thin...so i guess there's nothing we can do about it."

we take a hell of a lot of grief here in the states. and a lot of it is VERY well deserved. but the notion that somehow the others who sit around with their arms-crossed watching crap like this happen is ok...or acceptable...or just completely ignored...is ridiculous.

[pirc1]

Originally posted by MadMax
side debate...why are we always the ones forced to take the lead in stamping out crap like this?

"well..the US is spread too thin...so i guess there's nothing we can do about it."

we take a hell of a lot of grief here in the states. and a lot of it is VERY well deserved. but the notion that somehow the others who sit around with their arms-crossed watching crap like this happen is ok...or acceptable...or just completely ignored...is ridiculous.

Why does US tax payer have to foot the bill for everything? Why cann't EU or Africa Union do something? The UN is pathetic sometimes.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Do you have any actual proof to back up this claim, or is this just your "hunch"?

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge, but I guess not for someone as divorced from reality as you are.

We are extending our troops' tours of duty, forcing them to reenlist under threat of being sent to Iraq, and not allowing people to retire after their service periods are up (all topics discussed at length on this board, you have the search feature, use it). In addition, we have committed most of our military reserves to Iraq for the foreseeable future, enlistment is down across all of the branches of military, and we are pulling people out of South Korea just so that we can meet all of our military commitments.

You can see it as a "hunch" if you like, but my statement is, at worst, an educated guess.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by andymoon
I thought it was pretty much common knowledge, but I guess not for someone as divorced from reality as you are.

We are extending our troops' tours of duty, forcing them to reenlist under threat of being sent to Iraq, and not allowing people to retire after their service periods are up (all topics discussed at length on this board, you have the search feature, use it). In addition, we have committed most of our military reserves to Iraq for the foreseeable future, enlistment is down across all of the branches of military, and we are pulling people out of South Korea just so that we can meet all of our military commitments.

You can see it as a "hunch" if you like, but my statement is, at worst, an educated guess.

Didn't think you could back up that claim.

"Most of our military reserves have been committed to Iraq"? You are saying that >50% of the US military is committed to Iraq for the "foreseeable future"? Can you back that up, andy, or are you just guessing again in order to boost your weak position in this thread?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by MadMax
side debate...why are we always the ones forced to take the lead in stamping out crap like this?

"well..the US is spread too thin...so i guess there's nothing we can do about it."

When we appointed ourselves the leader of the world, those duties just started falling on us.

Originally posted by MadMax

we take a hell of a lot of grief here in the states. and a lot of it is VERY well deserved. but the notion that somehow the others who sit around with their arms-crossed watching crap like this happen is ok...or acceptable...or just completely ignored...is ridiculous.

I agree with you. The rest of the world should do something, but generally they do not unless prodded and led by the US. Unfortunately, Bush burned most of our bridges with the rest of the world over Iraq and committed the lion's share of our military to Iraq for the foreseeable future.

This is a recipe for ACTUAL humanitarian missions to fail or not get started in the first place. This is also a large part of the reason I was disgusted at the way this administration sold the war in Iraq. They made it seem NECESSARY to take out Saddam NOW (because of WMDs) and as a result of their misinformation, distortions, or lies (it really doesn't matter which they were) we are now unable to do the work ourselves as a result of lack of manpower and are unable to lead because of our lack of political capital.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by andymoon
I thought it was pretty much common knowledge,

Wow, Texxx can't even concede that our Armed Forces are stretched thin after 3 years of war. If you also said the sun is shining, Texxx would probably try to argue that it is the moon you see.

Don't fall for Texxx's trap asking you to waste your time to find data to support that. This is just a BBS...not the pentagon. Notice that Texxx isn't offering up any counter arguments.

So Texxx, are you saying you support an American lead effort to assist African nation's? Others seem to be wondering why we should waste American $ fighting a war in Africa. So what is your position?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Didn't think you could back up that claim.

I did back it up AFAIC. Given that I have NEVER seen you or your brother back up any of the garbage that you spew, it truly doesn't concern me that you don't feel that my claim is adequately backed up.

Originally posted by bigtexxx

"Most of our military reserves have been committed to Iraq"? You are saying that >50% of the US military is committed to Iraq for the "foreseeable future"? Can you back that up, andy, or are you just guessing again in order to boost your weak position in this thread?

Actually, the number I found (at usmilitary.about.com) was that 35% of the reserve forces (National Guard and Reserves) are actively a part of the "War on Terror," the vast majority in Iraq. Since there is absolutely no plan that has been presented to us regarding withdrawal of said troops, they will be there for the "foreseeable future."

Can you find any reputable source that says that the US military is not spread too thin to accomplish other actions? Run away now, I would hate for you to hurt yourself doing any research or backing up any of the lunacy that you spout.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by krosfyah
Wow, Texxx can't even concede that our Armed Forces are stretched thin after 3 years of war. If you also said the sun is shining, Texxx would probably try to argue that it is the moon you see.

Don't fall for Texxx's trap asking you to waste your time to find data to support that. This is just a BBS...not the pentagon. Notice that Texxx isn't offering up any counter arguments.

So Texxx, are you saying you support an American lead effort to assist African nation's? Others seem to be wondering why we should waste American $ fighting a war in Africa. So what is your position?

I'm merely asking questions about the statements that moon makes. I thought he should be able to back up the statements he spouts off and considers truth, but this thread shows otherwise.

I'm not sure why my questioning moon's assumptions angers you. :confused:

Cheer up, chap!

[andymoon]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
I'm merely asking questions about the statements that moon makes. I thought he should be able to back up the statements he spouts off and considers truth, but this thread shows otherwise.

I'm not sure why my questioning moon's assumptions angers you. :confused:

Cheer up, chap!

So, your answer to his question is that you cannot back up anything and that you were just attacking my points for no good reason and with no contrary evidence.

Nice to see you can admit it.

[Deckard]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
I'm merely asking questions about the statements that moon makes. I thought he should be able to back up the statements he spouts off and considers truth, but this thread shows otherwise.

I'm not sure why my questioning moon's assumptions angers you. :confused:

Cheer up, chap!
Andy has a very good point... why don't you ever post facts and links to back up your opinions? Lots of the rest of us do, to one degree or another, and it's not based on ideology. All you and Trader_J do is ask questions and pontificate, in your usual sarcastic manner. At least Trader_J can be funny. :)

As to the topic, Britain and France both have a long history in the region. They, and the EU, should take a lead role in doing something about the Sudan, imo. The AU is pretty much a farce, but they would likely follow their lead and provide political cover, and some symbolic troops. We could supply transport and logistics. I would like to see something happen along those lines, like yesterday. People are dying by the truckload.



Keep D&D Civil!!

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by Deckard
Andy has a very good point... why don't you ever post facts and links to back up your opinions? Lots of the rest of us do, to one degree or another, and it's not based on ideology.

I didn't even post any opinions in this thread. I wanted to hear more about the allegedly well thought-out statements that moon made. I thought that since he was stating things as facts, then he could back them up with his own personal research that helped him reach his conclusions. I wanted to understand that research. He could not provide any evidence supporting his statesments, which was unfortunate because I was genuinely interested.

I love it when the liberals try to gang up on people when one of their own is unable to defend himself. Safety in numbers I suppose...

[andymoon]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
I didn't even post any opinions in this thread. I wanted to hear more about the allegedly well thought-out statements that moon made. I thought that since he was stating things as facts, then he could back them up with his own personal research that helped him reach his conclusions. I wanted to understand that research. He could not provide any evidence supporting his statesments, which was unfortunate because I was genuinely interested.

You must have failed reading comprehension. I backed up my statements, which is far more than you have ever done.

Both you and your brother are worthless to even attempt to have a substantive debate with. Have fun with him on ignore.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by andymoon
You must have failed reading comprehension. I backed up my statements, which is far more than you have ever done.

Both you and your brother are worthless to even attempt to have a substantive debate with. Have fun with him on ignore.

No, you're wrong. You never backed up your statements. You said that our military was spread thin. You tried to defend it by claiming that enlistment was down across all branches of the military and that most of our military reserves are committed to Iraq. No links appeared to any of this, you just spouted it off as fact. Just because enlistment is down doesn't mean that we're spread too thin. Then you tell me that only 35% of our military is committed to the war on terror, which obviously is larger than just Iraq, and which is obviously not "most of our military in Iraq", as you claimed. That proves that you are wrong right there. I've caught you before in these exaggerations, and I've caught you again.

Now you put me on ignore for questioning your assumptions. Run, boy, run.

[krosfyah]

Texxx, I asked you a question which you conveniently didn't answer. I am trying to understand why you would bother to ask for supporting data on a common sense issue.

The question (again):
Would you support military action, if we had the resource capacity, in Africa?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by krosfyah
Texxx, I asked you a question which you conveniently didn't answer.

Par for the course for texx and t_j.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by krosfyah
Texxx, I asked you a question which you conveniently didn't answer. I am trying to understand why you would bother to ask for supporting data on a common sense issue.

The question (again):
Would you support military action, if we had the resource capacity, in Africa?

Despite the hurtful words you provided me on an unsolicited basis, I will repond to your question. Please refrain from the insults in the future, though. Let's keep the D&D civil please.

What's happening in Africa right now is truly tragic. As a compassionate individual, my heart goes out to those who are suffering there. If force could solve the problem there, I absolutely would be in favor of its use as a last resort.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by andymoon
Par for the course for texx and t_j.

You are all about insults and running. As I told krosfyah, let's keep the D&D civil.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Despite the hurtful words you provided me on an unsolicited basis, I will repond to your question. Please refrain from the insults in the future, though. Let's keep the D&D civil please.

I did not call you any names. You must have me confused with somebody else. But I'm sorry that I jumped in on this thread "unsolicited." I didn't know I needed an invitation to respond to an Internet BBS thread.

Originally posted by bigtexxx
What's happening in Africa right now is truly tragic. As a compassionate individual, my heart goes out to those who are suffering there. If force could solve the problem there, I absolutely would be in favor of its use as a last resort.

Many have argued that our invasion of Iraq diverted our attention in Afghanistan. We have yet to find Bin Laden. The region now supplies major percentages of the world's opium and American officials are concerned that they are dangerously close to falling into a narcatic state much like Columbia (cocaine) in the 80's. Had we continued to focus on Afghanistan, we certainly would have had more resources to address these problems.

So now I'm hearing that you are in favor of initiating another military campaign on another continent despite that we have not ended conflict in either Afghanistan or Iraq?

You said, yes, "as a last resort." Pardon my skeptisicm but the standard of starting a war "as a last resort" has been contraversial, to say the least. So if an Iraq war supporter uses that phrase, it doesn't hold much weight with me. I'm assuming you support this war?

Therefore, the question of # of troops, is virtually irrelevant, in this debate. A country as a whole should only engage in one war at a time. So the fact remains, America has limited capacity to engage in another military conflict at this point in time.

[basso]

Originally posted by krosfyah

Many have argued that our invasion of Iraq diverted our attention in Afghanistan.

argued incorrectly, it must be added. and no once suggesting starting a war. in fact, i'm suggesting sending in EU,AU, whateverU troops as a buffer, supported by US air cover. think Bosnia. shouldn't be a need for heavy equipment and so little need for america logistical support. this is doable, it just requires the political will. i was surprised at the lack of interest here from the left, but sam has eloquently explained in the venezuelan thread that thuggery and murder just aren't of interest to him and his.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
argued incorrectly, it must be added.

Whatever. Anyone who believes that Iraq did not divert our attention from our needs in Afghanistan including capturing Bin Laden simply is not looking at reality.

Originally posted by basso

and no once suggesting starting a war. in fact, i'm suggesting sending in EU,AU, whateverU troops as a buffer, supported by US air cover. think Bosnia. shouldn't be a need for heavy equipment and so little need for america logistical support. this is doable, it just requires the political will.

And the political capital, which this administration wasted on an unnecessary war in Iraq.

Originally posted by basso

i was surprised at the lack of interest here from the left, but sam has eloquently explained in the venezuelan thread that thuggery and murder just aren't of interest to him and his.

You have a monstrously bad case of selective perception.

[basso]

Originally posted by andymoon

You have a monstrously bad case of selective perception.

prove me wrong. where's the outcry over darfur on the left? has dean addressed it since becoming DNC chair? where's nancy reid and harry pelosi? kerry? n'existe pas...

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
prove me wrong. where's the outcry over darfur on the left? has dean addressed it since becoming DNC chair? where's nancy reid and harry pelosi? kerry? n'existe pas...

I don't really care, those aren't people who represent my point of view. Darfur is a horrible situation, to be sure, but honestly what can we do? It's not like Condoleeza Rice is going to sway a lot of people in the EU, John Bolton doesn't have any credibility at the UN, and Africa is outside of NATO's theatre.

We certainly SHOULD be the leader of the world and we should definitely lead the world to action in this instance, but GWB decided that Iraq was more important. It is truly sad that the people in Darfur are going to suffer because our President spent all of his political capital on a totally unnecessary war, but that is the situation we now find ourselves in.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by basso
. i was surprised at the lack of interest here from the left, but sam has eloquently explained in the venezuelan thread that thuggery and murder just aren't of interest to him and his.

basso, the eloquence was all yours. Your very own insults hung you in that other thread and showed, pretty conclusively, that you put politics over principles when it comes to criticizing electoral practices. Embarrassing, I guess, which is why you had to start taking shots at me in this one.

Anyway, I suppose you are accusing me of wish/thought crime again for not sufficiently expressing horror about Darfurian Genocide? OK, I don't recall ever trying to marginalize the tragedy, and I think if you search I've probably posted before that we should do something.

But anyway, if I haven't or if I have and you didn't see it, I hereby express shock and horror, and call for intervention from the international community, even those disgusting Europeans. Let me know what the proper condemantory terms are and I will repost them.

Let me know how many times I need to re-post that before you deem it sufficient.

You know, as long as we are brainstorming and indicting congressional leaders, I've got a plan that could spur them into action - why don't we take a bunch of Darfurians who are in Persistent Vegetative States and then threaten to withdraw their ANH tubes?

I figure that's the way to capture the real power brokers, you know, your Frists, your Hasterts, your DeLays - they might even call a midnight session of congress or something. I've had it with those feckless (as compared to feckful sorts like yourself and W)
democratic bitches and their inactivity on this issue.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by basso
prove me wrong. where's the outcry over darfur on the left? has dean addressed it since becoming DNC chair? where's nancy reid and harry pelosi? kerry? n'existe pas...
Well well, lookie here. All this took was to google "Howard Dean Darfur". I guess that is too much to do when you are a busy little bee demonstrating your moral superiority on a basketball message board.

Does he get absolved basso? Is this a sufficient show in your book? Or is he still a wish-criminal? And since this is in August, is it too long ago to count?

Tuesday, August 17, 2004
The Forgotten Crisis
By Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.
This is one in a series of weekly syndicated columns written by Governor Howard Dean.

As everyone who reads this column knows, I strongly opposed the war in Iraq because I did not believe the President was being truthful with us about the potential dangers Saddam Hussein posed to our safety. I also criticized the President for not using institutions such as the United Nations in a cooperative way to help accomplish a goal most Americans shared, which was to limit the destructive role Saddam played in the region and in his own country.

However, I have also said that the U.N. bears a portion of the blame for the Iraq war. The U.N. did not understand that sometimes action is necessary and talk is not enough. There is often too much dithering in the European Union and at the U.N. when action is needed. The shameful reluctance of the European Union to intervene forcefully in Bosnia in order to stop genocide is one such instance. The ultimate failure of the entire world community, including the United States, to stop the massacres in Rwanda is another example.

The U.N. does not seem to learn very fast.

In Sudan, Africa's largest nation geographically, a terrible ethnic cleansing has been going on for more than a year in the western Darfur region where government sponsored Arabic speaking Sudanese militias have been systematically moving black Muslim Sudanese off their traditional lands. Over one million people have been displaced. Systematic rapes, burning women and children alive, and other forms of murder and intimidation are the preferred methods of the roving gangs called the Janjaweed. These gangs, supported sometimes directly by Sudanese government forces, are burning villages and sending their populations either to mass graves or, for the lucky ones, to foul refugee camps along the border with Chad.

This spring, the U.S. pushed a resolution through the U.N. Security Council threatening sanctions on Sudan for their disgraceful conduct. The already weak resolution was watered down at the request of a number of countries, including the Europeans.

Europeans cannot criticize the United States for waging war in Iraq if they are unwilling to exhibit the moral fiber to stop genocide by acting collectively and with decisiveness. President Bush was wrong to go into Iraq unilaterally when Iraq posed no danger to the United States, but we were right to demand accountability from Saddam. We are also right to demand accountability in Sudan. Every day that goes by without meaningful sanctions and even military intervention in Sudan by African, European and if necessary U.N. forces is a day where hundreds of innocent civilians die and thousands are displaced from their land. Every day that goes by without action to stop the Sudan genocide is a day that the anti-Iraq war position so widely held in the rest of the world appears to be based less on principle and more on politics. And every day that goes by is a day in which George Bush's contempt for the international community, which I have denounced every day for two years, becomes more difficult to criticize.

Now is the time for the world community to act if they are serious about encouraging an enlightened leadership role for the United States. My challenge to the U.N. and Europe is simple: if you don't like American diplomacy under George Bush, then do something to show those of us in opposition here in the U.S. that you can behave in such a way that unilateralism is not necessary.

Posted by Howard Dean at 09:33 AM
http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/004943.html



Edit: two down

Pelosi: 'U.S. And International Community Must Act Now to Stop the Killings in Sudan'
2004-06-23
PRNewswire



WASHINGTON, June 23 /PRNewswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Members of the Congressional Black Caucus held a news conference in the Capitol this afternoon to urge more action by the Bush Administration and the international community to stop the killing in Sudan. Below are Pelosi's remarks:
"Good afternoon. I commend the Congressional Black Caucus, under the leadership of Chairman Elijah Cummings, and Congressman Donald Payne, the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations, for their leadership in calling to the world's attention the crisis in Sudan.

"As they have so eloquently said, a shocking but sadly familiar tragedy is unfolding in Africa, this time in the Darfur region of the western Sudan. The United States and the international community must act now before even more innocents are slaughtered.

"The Sudanese government has mobilized militias to carry out a scorched earth policy of indiscriminate attacks on African civilians. Khartoum and its surrogate militias have systematically tortured, raped, and killed thousands of innocent civilians based solely on their identity.

"As many as 30,000 civilians may have been murdered and more than 1 million driven off their land into unprotected camps in Sudan and neighboring Chad. The humanitarian crises caused by the fighting could produce an additional 350,000 deaths in the next nine months.

"Both USAID and the United Nations have described these atrocities as 'ethnic cleansing,' and the Committee on Conscience of our own Holocaust Memorial Museum has issued a genocide warning for Darfur.

"A genocide in the making demands the immediate attention of our government, the United Nations, and others in the international community. The President, Secretary of State, and Secretary General of the United Nations must exercise their leadership and stop this nightmare from continuing.

"I call upon the President to withhold any normalization of relations with Sudan. We must demand of Khartoum an immediate and verifiable cessation of violence against Darfur, and the disarming of the militias according to the cease-fire agreement they signed.

"The Bush Administration also needs to increase its efforts to generate an international response to the suffering in Darfur. Those responsible for the deaths and destruction need to be held accountable, the flow of relief supplies needs to be expanded, and security needs to be provided for relief workers and their equipment.

"President Bush must not hesitate to impose sanctions as necessary to encourage a much higher degree of cooperation by the Sudanese government.

"Our response to the daily misery in Darfur must not be half-measures and delay. We must act now while there is time to stop further slaughter, or our country will look back on the lives lost in Darfur with the regret and shame that we feel for events in other parts of Africa.

"How many times have we heard the public outcry: 'Why didn't we stop the killings?' This is a crisis. This is an emergency. We must act now to stop the slaughter of thousands of innocent people."

Office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

CONTACT: Brendan Daly or Jennifer Crider of the Office of HouseDemocratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, +1-202-226-7616

Web site: http://democraticleader.house.gov/

.

[FranchiseBlade]

I'm glad that leaders on the left, plus Howard Dean(who is more moderate than left leaning) have spoken out strongly on the Darfur issue.

That is the kind of thing that could make me join and actively participate in the Democratic party again.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I'm glad that leaders on the left, plus Howard Dean(who is more moderate than left leaning) have spoken out strongly on the Darfur issue.

That is the kind of thing that could make me join and actively participate in the Democratic party again.

thank basso for shaming me/them for inventing a time machine and retroactively doing it, lest I face another one of his vicious tongue lashings.

Edit: another walk down memory lane, basso aligns himself with Moveon.org on Darfur genocide, circa June 2004

http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77738&highlight=janjaweed

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by basso
argued incorrectly, it must be added.

I find it entertaining that you are arguing with me whether it is arguable that the Iraq war diverted attention.

Originally posted by basso
...and no once suggesting starting a war.

Actually BigTexxx said he was in favor of using force...(as a last resort) aka starting a war. [Please note I was previously directing my comments to him...not you...which is fine...just providing context]


Originally posted by basso
this is doable, it just requires the political will.

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner. This country has expended it's politial will to fight for causes overseas...for now. As much as I would like to assist those people, I don't think America has the swagger to impart anything on this conflict. And that right there is the shame in starting the Iraqi war in the first place. I hate it but that is the reality.

Originally posted by basso
i was surprised at the lack of interest here from the left, but sam has eloquently explained in the venezuelan thread that thuggery and murder just aren't of interest to him and his.

"him and his", huh?

That sounds about right. As long as black people are killing themselves, America won't intervene. If those were white people (as you said Basso, think Bosnia), then we'd probably be all over it.

[insane man]

given that we essentially bankroll the egyptian army shouldn't we force them to help out? now im not sure about the sentiments of the sudanese about this but since they are there, fairly modern and well equipped, and the fact that we pay them why can't we pressure them?

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by krosfyah
That sounds about right. As long as black people are killing themselves, America won't intervene. If those were white people (as you said Basso, think Bosnia), then we'd probably be all over it.

I was wondering why you cared so much about Darfur. I forgot that you're black. Nice job throwing out the race card, buddy. Really uncalled for, especially without any kind of justification supporting your outlandish statements. :rolleyes:

[basso]

Originally posted by andymoon
Whatever. Anyone who believes that Iraq did not divert our attention from our needs in Afghanistan including capturing Bin Laden simply is not looking at reality.

Does that include Tommy Franks?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/opinion/19franks.html?ex=1255924800&en=dfe849b12233309f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

--
War of Words
By TOMMY FRANKS

President Bush and Senator John Kerry have very different views of the war on terrorism, and those differences ought to be debated in this presidential campaign. But the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history.

On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.

First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.

Third, the Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts.

As we planned for potential military action in Iraq and conducted counterterrorist operations in several other countries in the region, Afghanistan remained a center of focus. Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.

We are committed to winning this war on all fronts, and we are making impressive gains. Afghanistan has held the first free elections in its history. Iraq is led by a free government made up of its own citizens. By the end of this year, NATO and American forces will have trained 125,000 Iraqis to enforce the law, fight insurgents and secure the borders. This is in addition to the great humanitarian progress already achieved in Iraq.

Many hurdles remain, of course. But the gravest danger would result from the withdrawal of American troops before we finish our work. Today we are asking our servicemen and women to do more, in more places, than we have in decades. They deserve honest, consistent, no-spin leadership that respects them, their families and their sacrifices. The war against terrorism is the right war at the right time for the right reasons. And Iraq is one of the places that war must be fought and won. George W. Bush has his eye on that ball and Senator John Kerry does not.

[basso]

Originally posted by andymoon
I don't really care, those aren't people who represent my point of view. Darfur is a horrible situation, to be sure, but honestly what can we do? It's not like Condoleeza Rice is going to sway a lot of people in the EU, John Bolton doesn't have any credibility at the UN, and Africa is outside of NATO's theatre.

We certainly SHOULD be the leader of the world and we should definitely lead the world to action in this instance, but GWB decided that Iraq was more important. It is truly sad that the people in Darfur are going to suffer because our President spent all of his political capital on a totally unnecessary war, but that is the situation we now find ourselves in.

interesting. you think GWB is more culpable that the folks in khartum?

[basso]

Originally posted by SamFisher
basso, the eloquence was all yours. Your very own insults hung you in that other thread and showed, pretty conclusively, that you put politics over principles when it comes to criticizing electoral practices. Embarrassing, I guess, which is why you had to start taking shots at me in this one.

Anyway, I suppose you are accusing me of wish/thought crime again for not sufficiently expressing horror about Darfurian Genocide? OK, I don't recall ever trying to marginalize the tragedy, and I think if you search I've probably posted before that we should do something.

But anyway, if I haven't or if I have and you didn't see it, I hereby express shock and horror, and call for intervention from the international community, even those disgusting Europeans. Let me know what the proper condemantory terms are and I will repost them.

Let me know how many times I need to re-post that before you deem it sufficient.

You know, as long as we are brainstorming and indicting congressional leaders, I've got a plan that could spur them into action - why don't we take a bunch of Darfurians who are in Persistent Vegetative States and then threaten to withdraw their ANH tubes?

I figure that's the way to capture the real power brokers, you know, your Frists, your Hasterts, your DeLays - they might even call a midnight session of congress or something. I've had it with those feckless (as compared to feckful sorts like yourself and W)
democratic bitches and their inactivity on this issue.

if you'll reference the beginning of the thread, you'll see i've not failed to criticize republicans on this issue. the responsibility on the right rests w/ Bush, although i certainly wish congress would do something. pelosi-reid-dean are the de facto dem leaders now, they should be out in front on this issue. i note your google finds, but it's old news. Powell called Dafur "genocide" 6 months ago. what's happened since, except that more people have died? my calling out the dems here is simply because i'm puzzled. here's a zero risk opportunity to score points against W, and they've proved as feckless as he has. i don't get it. i can only suppose that they only care about killing brown people when repubicans start a pre-emptive war. otherwise, they hide their lights under a bush-el...

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
I was wondering why you cared so much about Darfur. I forgot that you're black. Nice job throwing out the race card, buddy. Really uncalled for, especially without any kind of justification supporting your outlandish statements. :rolleyes:

Why were we in Kosovo but not Dafur?

Sorry if you don't like to hear about race related issues...but please provide me another explaination and I'd be glad to consider it. I'm not saying this is the ONLY reason but I think you'll have a hard time convincing most reasonable people that race doesn't play a role.

The ONLY reason we are in Afganastan is because they attacked us.

The ONLY reason we are in Iraq is for national interests (ahem...oil)

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by krosfyah
Why were we in Kosovo but not Dafur?

Sorry if you don't like to hear about race related issues...but please provide me another explaination and I'd be glad to consider it. I'm not saying this is the ONLY reason but I think you'll have a hard time convincing most reasonable people that race doesn't play a role.

The ONLY reason we are in Afganastan is because they attacked us.

The ONLY reason we are in Iraq is for national interests (ahem...oil)

Wow. What a pathetic response. So in your mind, it's a racial thing until proven otherwise. Don't you think you should justify your claim, since you absolutely have not made any attempt to do that? You know, throwing the race card is the easy way out. Thinking about it critically and coming to a conslusion is what an adult thinker would do. Grow up.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Wow. What a pathetic response. So in your mind, it's a racial thing until proven otherwise. Don't you think you should justify your claim, since you absolutely have not made any attempt to do that? You know, throwing the race card is the easy way out. Thinking about it critically and coming to a conslusion is what an adult thinker would do. Grow up.

Grow up? Perhaps you forgot what genocide is. By definition it is ethnic cleansing. So I'm not sure how I'm playing the race card? Geez. I didn't realized I needed to spell that out for you on this topic, of all things.

Okay, here is a quick list of genocidal events:

American Involvement:

Kosovo
Nazi Germany
(As a side note: notice that U.S. backs Isreal and not Palastine)

No American Involvement (where non-whites were the target)
Armenia 1915
Kurdish 1978-1983
Cambodia '75
Rwanda
Dafur

Given America's history of racial problems, we have shaky credibility on the front of racial equality within our own boarders. It isn't a big stretch to say America isn't the champion of racial causes accross the globe.

Now...you grow up!

[pippendagimp]

Actually, Kosovo has the largest coal reserves in Europe (by far). In fact securing the main mine there was one of our first operations. We recently privatized and parcelled out the rights for a nice profit. I don't know of any significant natural resources to speak of in Darfur.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by krosfyah
Grow up? Perhaps you forgot what genocide is. By definition it is ethnic cleansing. So I'm not sure how I'm playing the race card? Geez. I didn't realized I needed to spell that out for you on this topic, of all things.

Okay, here is a quick list of genocidal events:

American Involvement:

Kosovo
Nazi Germany
(As a side note: notice that U.S. backs Isreal and not Palastine)

No American Involvement (where non-whites were the target)
Armenia 1915
Kurdish 1978-1983
Cambodia '75
Rwanda
Dafur

Given America's history of racial problems, we have shaky credibility on the front of racial equality within our own boarders. It isn't a big stretch to say America isn't the champion of racial causes accross the globe.

Now...you grow up!

LOL.

Buddy, your two examples of American involvement both involved America saving ethnic minorities (or do they not count in your mind since they're not black?) from the genocidal white man. Muslims and other ethnic minorities in Kosovo, and Jews in Germany and the areas which Germany had overtaken.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by pippendagimp
Actually, Kosovo has the largest coal reserves in Europe (by far). In fact securing the main mine there was one of our first operations. We recently privatized and parcelled out the rights for a nice profit. I don't know of any significant natural resources to speak of in Darfur.

Could you link to this story? I have an interest in the energy industry. Thanks in advance.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by pippendagimp
Actually, Kosovo has the largest coal reserves in Europe (by far). In fact securing the main mine there was one of our first operations. We recently privatized and parcelled out the rights for a nice profit. I don't know of any significant natural resources to speak of in Darfur.

Interesting. I didn't realize that. It doesn't change the end result, however. Scoreboard (see my previous post)

Generally, American isn't too interested in stopping genocide unless there are extenuating circumstances...as if genocide wasn't extenuating enough.

So my point is, race certainly DOES play a factor. How could it not?

[pippendagimp]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Could you link to this story? I have an interest in the energy industry. Thanks in advance.

I posted an article on the bbs a little while back, so u can just run a search on that one.

But here's another link from 1995 detailing the approx. value of Kosovo's significant resources:

http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/217/t217-12.htm

(an excerpt)
"The latest research proved that lignite reserves stand at around 14 billion 237 million tons which equals 2296 million tons of petroleum. The overall value of the energy resources and coal exploitation facilities, the facilities for the production of electricity, gas, artificial fertilizers and other accompanying industries, amounts to 232.5 billion dollars.


When talking about power, one should include the water resources and the facilities built to exploit them, experts underscore. The hydro-electric power plants, alone, are worth 50 million dollars.


However, Kosovo's greatest wealth is in its mines, which had been discovered a long time ago and exploited by many a conqueror. The list of non-ferrous metal reserves is headed by lead, zinc, potassium, bismuth, silver, gold and other rare metals, e.g. gallium. All one needs to recall is that non-ferrous metals from Kosovo accounted for one-fourth of ex-Yugoslavia's exports in the fifties.


The lead and zinc reserves induced the construction of plants for their processing and metallurgical plants in Kosovska Mitrovica, Stari Trg, Kisnica, Ajvalija, Novo Brdo, Leposavic, Belo Brdo, etc. The reserves of minerals of non-ferrous metals of the A, B, C1 and C2 categories are estimated to stand at 200 million tons. According to the London Stock of Exchange, their value stands at 20 billion dollars. The plants enable the processing of two million tons of ore a year. Ferronickel mines hold a special place among Kosovo's resources. They had been researched for a long time and the research have confirmed that their reserves stand at 21 million tons. This prompted the opening of mines and the construction of a metallurgical plant in Glogovac. The value of the reserves of this metal and the production facilities is estimated at around 3 billion dollars. Non-metal reserves are also extremely important. Out of 24 types of non-metals in Kosovo, only 17 have been subjected to geological research. The exploitation of these resources, the value of which is estimated at 7.9 billion dollars, has begun only a short while ago.


Kosovo also boasts many forests. On 31 May 1985, forests covered 448,000 hectares of Kosovo land and the value of this natural resource is estimated at 7 billion dollars. On the other hand, the facilities built to process the wood, along with their accompanying facilities and infrastructure, are valued at one billion dollars. Kosovo has a lot of arable land, as well. According to the study, it is worth around 120 billion dollars."

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by pippendagimp
I posted an article on the bbs a little while back, so u can just run a search on that one.

But here's another link from 1995 detailing the approx. value of Kosovo's significant resources:

http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/217/t217-12.htm

(an excerpt)
"The latest research proved that lignite reserves stand at around 14 billion 237 million tons which equals 2296 million tons of petroleum. The overall value of the energy resources and coal exploitation facilities, the facilities for the production of electricity, gas, artificial fertilizers and other accompanying industries, amounts to 232.5 billion dollars.


When talking about power, one should include the water resources and the facilities built to exploit them, experts underscore. The hydro-electric power plants, alone, are worth 50 million dollars.


However, Kosovo's greatest wealth is in its mines, which had been discovered a long time ago and exploited by many a conqueror. The list of non-ferrous metal reserves is headed by lead, zinc, potassium, bismuth, silver, gold and other rare metals, e.g. gallium. All one needs to recall is that non-ferrous metals from Kosovo accounted for one-fourth of ex-Yugoslavia's exports in the fifties.


The lead and zinc reserves induced the construction of plants for their processing and metallurgical plants in Kosovska Mitrovica, Stari Trg, Kisnica, Ajvalija, Novo Brdo, Leposavic, Belo Brdo, etc. The reserves of minerals of non-ferrous metals of the A, B, C1 and C2 categories are estimated to stand at 200 million tons. According to the London Stock of Exchange, their value stands at 20 billion dollars. The plants enable the processing of two million tons of ore a year. Ferronickel mines hold a special place among Kosovo's resources. They had been researched for a long time and the research have confirmed that their reserves stand at 21 million tons. This prompted the opening of mines and the construction of a metallurgical plant in Glogovac. The value of the reserves of this metal and the production facilities is estimated at around 3 billion dollars. Non-metal reserves are also extremely important. Out of 24 types of non-metals in Kosovo, only 17 have been subjected to geological research. The exploitation of these resources, the value of which is estimated at 7.9 billion dollars, has begun only a short while ago.


Kosovo also boasts many forests. On 31 May 1985, forests covered 448,000 hectares of Kosovo land and the value of this natural resource is estimated at 7 billion dollars. On the other hand, the facilities built to process the wood, along with their accompanying facilities and infrastructure, are valued at one billion dollars. Kosovo has a lot of arable land, as well. According to the study, it is worth around 120 billion dollars."

I can't find your message through search. Could you link to it again? Also, I don't doubt that there exists coal in Kosovo, but it's quite another thing to claim that the US profited from it. It's an even bigger claim to insinuate that's the reason we took military action there.

[pippendagimp]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
I can't find your message through search. Could you link to it again? Also, I don't doubt that there exists coal in Kosovo, but it's quite another thing to claim that the US profited from it. It's an even bigger claim to insinuate that's the reason we took military action there.

Funny, in your initial reply to me u simply had an interest in the energy industry.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by pippendagimp
Funny, in your initial reply to me u simply had an interest in the energy industry.

I do have an interest in the energy industry. I'd also like to understand your position that you think the US had energy ideas in mind from their involvement in Kosovo.

Please find that post for me. thanks.

[pippendagimp]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Please find that post for me. thanks.

I'd rather not spend my time looking for the article. What you believe or care to understand is really not my concern. No offense, but I have nothing to gain from you in any case. I would suggest starting in google with "kosovo lignite privatize" if you're still interested.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by pippendagimp
I'd rather not spend my time looking for the article. What you believe or care to understand is really not my concern. No offense, but I have nothing to gain from you in any case. I would suggest starting in google with "kosovo lignite privatize" if you're still interested.

Originally posted by pippendagimp
We recently privatized and parcelled out the rights for a nice profit.

So you admit that you just lied. You never posted anything that justifies you outlandish statement. You've been....

EXPOSED

[pippendagimp]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
So you admit that you just lied. You never posted anything that justifies you outlandish statement. You've been....

EXPOSED

Just because you have yet to develop a sufficient mastery of the search function and claim to have been unsuccessful in locating a post I made on Kosovo several months ago does not equate to me having lied in any way.

Now as I said, there's really nothing for me to gain by finding the article (or any similar article for that matter) for you. In fact, from your little "EXPOSED" tantrum it appears that in addition to little knowledge or search function savvy, you also have little maturity. One thing you do appear to have in spades however, is time to waste.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
LOL.

...or do they not count in your mind since they're not black?...

Results...bigtexxx....results.

Spin it how you like...but at the end of the day the fair-skinned people were supported and the dark-skinned people were ignored.

I'm not trivializing Nazi Germany and Kosovo. I'm illustrating to you the net result.

as you like to say...you have been "EXPOSED"

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by krosfyah
Results...bigtexxx....results.

Spin it how you like...but at the end of the day the fair-skinned people were supported and the dark-skinned people were ignored.

I'm not trivializing Nazi Germany and Kosovo. I'm illustrating to you the net result.

as you like to say...you have been "EXPOSED"

Right...since all those situations you listed were exactly the same except for the color of the peoples' skin. What a joke. In both of the examples you listed under "American intervention", we supported the darker skin colored group when compared to their "oppressors". Oops, you goofed on that one too.

Arguing with you is really beneath me. You lost, deal with it brah.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Right...since all those situations you listed were exactly the same except for the color of the peoples' skin. What a joke. In both of the examples you listed under "American intervention", we supported the darker skin colored group when compared to their "oppressors". Oops, you goofed on that one too.

Arguing with you is really beneath me. You lost, deal with it brah.

Fact remains...brah (is this you trying to be cool?)...America has done little to nothing in Africa.

Can't argue with results. Facts suck, huh? Better to just say things like "your beneath me." I guess that supports my argument how typical Americans would rather just ignore Africa. Thanks for proving my point, however, by refusing to even acknowledge concrete FACTS.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by krosfyah
Fact remains...brah (is this you trying to be cool?)...America has done little to nothing in Africa.

Did you forget about Somalia? Are they not black enough to count?

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
Did you forget about Somalia? Are they not black enough to count?

Yea, that's the best you got? We were there to assist in the distribution of food, btw, not to stop genocide. Sounds easy enough though, right? Well, at the first sign of trouble, America withdrew all of our troops. Rightfully so, I'll add, because we didn't send enough troops to do the right job in the first place.

So, yes, Somalia. Nice try but only further supports my point. In this case, doing nothing probably would have been better. Another example of America not taking Africa seriously!!!!!

As a side note: Somalia is a lot like what Afganastan was...a nation without a real government and is another Al Quada breeding hotspot. Mark my words, America will need to address Somalia again...not because we want to help...but because too much anti-American activity occurs there. All of this could be avoided if we didn't ignore them and assisted them proactively but we won't because Iraq takes too much attention (rightfully). So instead, we'll fall into the same trap as Afgan from the 80' to the 2000's.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by basso
if you'll reference the beginning of the thread, you'll see i've not failed to criticize republicans on this issue. the responsibility on the right rests w/ Bush, although i certainly wish congress would do something. pelosi-reid-dean are the de facto dem leaders now, they should be out in front on this issue. i note your google finds, but it's old news. Powell called Dafur "genocide" 6 months ago. what's happened since, except that more people have died? my calling out the dems here is simply because i'm puzzled. here's a zero risk opportunity to score points against W, and they've proved as feckless as he has. i don't get it. i can only suppose that they only care about killing brown people when repubicans start a pre-emptive war. otherwise, they hide their lights under a bush-el...

Basso;

Yes I noted you complained about GW Bush but do you really care more about Darfur or are you looking for a backhanded way to criticize the Dems?

In case you haven't noticed the Dems are the minority party. They don't control any branch of the Fed. government and can't do a thing about Darfur without Republicans. OTOH since the Republicans control all three branches of the elected Fed. government if they wanted to do something about Darfur they don't need the Dems.

So while even criticize the Dems. when whether they say something or not nothing will happen unless the Pres and the Repubs in Congress go along. For that matter GW Bush could do something about Darfur without even Congress under the War Powers act.

I find it hard to believe you're raising this issue because you're so concerned about Darfur when you're directing most of your criticism at the party that can't do anything about it without help from the other party.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by krosfyah
Yea, that's the best you got? We were there to assist in the distribution of food, btw, not to stop genocide. Sounds easy enough though, right? Well, at the first sign of trouble, America withdrew all of our troops. Rightfully so, I'll add, because we didn't send enough troops to do the right job in the first place.

You said America has never done anything in Africa, I didn't know that was limited to genocide, although the purposeful starvation of a million people could probably be called that anyway. We also did not withdraw at the first sign of trouble, nor did we fail to send in enough troops. Bush first sent in a large marine force along with a unit from the army. After the food was flowing again, the goal had been acheived, so the forces were reduced, and work was handed off to the UN. When everything went down the crapper again, Clinton sent troops back in. Your characterization of the event is poor at best.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
You said America has never done anything in Africa, I didn't know that was limited to genocide,

Well, since genocide was the topic...that's what I was talking about.

BTW, when somebody makes a comment simlar to "America does nothing in Africa," you don't have to take that literally. But since you want to nail me down on semantics...lets play.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
Your characterization of the event is poor at best.

We were there, I acknowledged that. But it wasn't enough, was it? Therefore, this arguement actually supports my opinion...not counters it.

But you're derailing my point.

My point:
American has done very little in Africa. So it should be no surprise that we aren't intervening in Darfur...just like we didn't intervene in Rwanda.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by krosfyah
Well, since genocide was the topic...that's what I was talking about.

I also said that Somalia could be considered a genocide. I believe the American general we had there with the reduced force characterized it as such.

We were there, I acknowledged that. But it wasn't enough, was it?

Yes, it was enough. We accomplished our mission in Somalia. When we turned it over to the UN, they bungled it, so we had to go back in, and were again successful. The famine conditions, which were started by a drought and exacerbated by the stoppage of food shipments, were relieved. As such, there is no longer what could be termed a genocide in Somalia. They are still basically in the midst of a civil war, but that is not an indicator that we failed there, only that our mission in that instance was not nation building.

My point:
American has done very little in Africa. So it should be no surprise that we aren't intervening in Darfur...just like we didn't intervene in Rwanda.

I agree that more can be done in Africa, and that it is no surprise that the US has not intervened in the Sudan (though to me it is a disappointment). I disagree that America has done very little in Africa. In addition to Somalia, there have been tremendous aid payments, both public and private, from the United States. In fact, the single largest annual beneficiary of US foreign aid is in Africa (Egypt).

We should do all that we can to stop every genocide as soon as it begins (or before, if possible). Unfortunately, I don't think the majority of Americans would support military intervention. That is why they had to be "lied to" to get behind the war in Iraq. Nation building is an unpopular use of our military.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
I also said that Somalia could be considered a genocide. I believe the American general we had there with the reduced force characterized it as such.

I cannot find any credible sources that list Somalia encountered genocide.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
Yes, it was enough. We accomplished our mission in Somalia. ...only that our mission in that instance was not nation building.

Okay, I guess it depends how you define success. You defined it as limiting the scope of what America set out to do. I'm defining it as providing meaningful change. I can say I set out to deliver a cup of coffee to a homeless person. Woohoo, I was successful. But in the big picture did you really do much?

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
I agree that more can be done in Africa, and that it is no surprise that the US has not intervened in the Sudan

That is refreshing to hear...truely. I wish we can translate this sentiment into action, however, rather than words.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
I disagree that America has done very little in Africa. In addition to Somalia, there have been tremendous aid payments, both public and private, from the United States. In fact, the single largest annual beneficiary of US foreign aid is in Africa (Egypt).

I agree with you. American citizens have been generious in monetary terms. (Take note, however, that America isn't the #1 provider in terms of per capita). But it is our government that has been largly inept.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
Unfortunately, I don't think the majority of Americans would support military intervention. That is why they had to be "lied to" to get behind the war in Iraq. Nation building is an unpopular use of our military.

Bingo!

As such, I doubt very seriously anybody can convince me that there isn't an underlying racial bias involved in why your "average American" would not support military action in Africa. Particularly now that we are entreached in war with Iraq. And that is why I have a problem with this president and his war policy. Genocide occured in Iraq during the 80's but genocide is occuring right now in Africa. Our priorities are with oil (sorry, preserving our economic interests)...not with helping the Iraqi citizens.

Two factors in why we aren't in Africa:
1. Ongoing war in Iraq.
2. Racial bias.

IMO, both are real-world reasons why we aren't in Africa and they suck! I hate it. As a voter I can't do anything about #2 but our President pushed the war and spending all his political powerbase on an arguably unnecessary war. And now we are stuck w/ point #1. I just hope some good comes from it and Iraq doesn't turn into a disaster 20 years from now.

In the meantime, Africans suffer...again.

[insane man]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
In fact, the single largest annual beneficiary of US foreign aid is in Africa (Egypt).

just to be anal: israel is the largest recipient. egypt is second. and its only because of the treaty.

plus you can't count egypt when discussing africa. yes duh its in africa but when we discuss africa its generally not egypt.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Arguing with you is really beneath me. You lost, deal with it brah.

BTW, I'm enjoying your silence.

You accused me of throwing the racial card on the topic of genocide. I'm still laughing at that one. Classic And I'm beneath you?

You always know when a poster has "lost." Its when they claim to be smarter and announce victory for themselves. It's the kiss of death. Never hurts to toss in a condescending remark to make yourself feel better too...brah.

[bnb]

Originally posted by basso

So what is the real reason why the U.S. has not responded as it should have? The truth is that combating crimes against humanity is simply not considered a national security issue. We don't want to burn our leverage on Sudan in the face of issues such as Iraq, Iran and Syria.



Sorry Kros.

I'm going to trump both your reasons with the above one right from the article. Sadly, humanitarian intervention has never been a priority. Not with the Democrats. And not with the Republicans. Not with the US. Not with the UN.

Racist? Hardly. Plenty of racism issues at home. But as to foreign policy...we don't much care about the skin colour of those on the ground. Only the economic and political importance.

Iraq? Well...I guess we can always play the Iraq card. I was thinking maybe we should start a 'three-degrees-from-iraq' game, similar to the six-degrees-from-kevin-beacon, but since we usually make it a one-degree-from-iraq connection, it just wouldn't be as much fun. Iraq may have stretched the military, but as Basso pointed out, it wouldn't take much to help out here. And with or without Iraq, we likely wouldn't be rushing in anyways. You noted it yourself. Genocide just isn't the draw it should be.

Funny (well, not) how this thread degenerated so quickly. Basso started it with frustration over his teams treatment of the situation. And the usual players dug out all the dirty laundy for the ensuing slap-fest.

Just another day in the D&D...

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by insane man
just to be anal: israel is the largest recipient. egypt is second. and its only because of the treaty.

plus you can't count egypt when discussing africa. yes duh its in africa but when we discuss africa its generally not egypt.

You make a good point. We (and I sometimes do it too) tend to lump "Africa" as one entity. So these statistics people try to justify themselves with get skewed. Africa in a continent...not a country.

[Trader_Jorge]

I don't know which assertion I'm laughing harder at:

1) That we went into Kosovo because of coal?
2) That we aren't going into Darfur because of race

Each are ridiculous on their own merits:

1) The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have plenty. There is no reason to look to a place like Kosovo for low grade lignite, which isn't even economical to transport over long distances, much less HUGE distances to the US. Just an incredibly ridiculous and poorly research position by pippendagimp and then bolstered by krosfyah. Guys, step it up.

2) Darfur and other similar places in Africa simply have very little impact on the national security of the US and the quality of living in the US. Why then, should we go there? Places like the Middle East, with terrorists, nuclear capabilities both in place and developing, as well as stronger militaries, do pose a security threat. When you add in the energy presence, and the worldwide economic impact of it, it is clear why we (and the rest of the coalition/world) take an interest in the Middle East. Very very simple.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by bnb
Sorry Kros.

I'm going to trump both your reasons with the above one right from the article. Sadly, humanitarian intervention has never been a priority. Not with the Democrats. And not with the Republicans. Not with the US. Not with the UN.

Racist? Hardly. Plenty of racism issues at home. But as to foreign policy...we don't much care about the skin colour of those on the ground. Only the economic and political importance.

Racism at home? Exactly. I already said that. America has a horrible track record of racial issues. If we can't even take care of our own, of course we won't support taking care of non-Americans. I said that already.

BNB, you are supporting my point, not countering it.

I have mentioned numerious times that the reasons were are in Iraq is for economic reasons...not humantarian. If it was for humanitarian reasons, we would have been in Iraq during the early 80's when the gas chambers were flowing.

So you say America only supports issues of economic importance. That's exactly what I'm saying. And regarding the economy, who controls it? Mostly whites. Which countries have the most wealth. Most white countries. Are you unable to thread that together? Why would whites be particlarly interested in helping blacks? But America sure jumped on the Kosovo wagon.

This in flamitory, I know. Because Americans don't want to hear this. But the truth hurts. I can't do a typical D&D by providing web links to support my claims. But the proof is in the pudding. Just look at the end results and they speak for themself. Every situation is different and must be judged seperately...but the end result is always the same. Africa is ignored...again.

Topic: Will America provide meaningful help in Dafur?

If history is the judge...then...NO.

[bnb]

Kros...

When you suggest we're not in Dafur because of race, then I wrongly assumed you meant that race was the reason we were not there. Seems we agree economics is the reason we're not there.

And while it's true the economic test affects people of certain races more than others that doesn't make the policy itself racist, unless racism is the basis of that discrimination.

I think that just about everybody who's posted here agrees we should be doing something. That it's shameful we haven't. Yet we prefer to play pin-the-blame on the donkey instead.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
I don't know which assertion I'm laughing harder at:

...

2) Darfur and other similar places in Africa simply have very little impact on the national security of the US and the quality of living in the US. Why then, should we go there? Places like the Middle East, with terrorists, nuclear capabilities both in place and developing, as well as stronger militaries, do pose a security threat. When you add in the energy presence, and the worldwide economic impact of it, it is clear why we (and the rest of the coalition/world) take an interest in the Middle East. Very very simple.

First time I've ever agreed with Trader_Jorge! Yes, we are in Iraq to assist America's "quality of living" (aka OIL!!!).

TJ,
You are now claiming there is an economic componant of why we are in Iraq. But on numerous occasions you and your compadres have argued the humanitarian reasons for being in Iraq by buying into the pack of lies this whitehouse has been feeding the public. It isn't for humantarian reasons we are in Iraq...puhlease! If it was, we'd have been there 25 years ago.

You laugh and be dismissive all you want about the racial componants of why we aren't in Dafur. All I'm saying is look at the results. You can't argue with results. Africa gets overlooked everytime.

To say that Africa is devoid of natural resources is silly. I bet your wife is wearing a diamond or two right now.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by krosfyah
BTW, I'm enjoying your silence.

You accused me of throwing the racial card on the topic of genocide. I'm still laughing at that one. Classic And I'm beneath you?

You always know when a poster has "lost." Its when they claim to be smarter and announce victory for themselves. It's the kiss of death. Never hurts to toss in a condescending remark to make yourself feel better too...brah.

You're simply continuing to embarrass yourself. Your last reply to StupidMoniker was just sad. You can't find any references to genocide in Somalia? Try googling. If that proves to be too much for you, here's a start: http://www.somaliawatch.org/archivefeb01/010202301.htm

StupidMoniker then correctly states that we accomplished our mission in Somalia. You seemed to begrudgingly accept that, yet then say it wasn't enough, and make some bizarre comparison to giving coffee to a homeless man. Then you continue to bemoan the current administration, play the race card again, and blah blah blah. Listen, you can only feel sorry for yourself and play the race card so long. This might work in the real world when people are afraid to respond to your ludicrous statements for fear of being un-pc, but that doesn't fly on an internet message board where posters are anonymous. You better have some justification for claiming it's a race thing, or people will call you out. You can't just make people prove it's NOT a race thing until you've shown that it is. We're still waiting for you to do that.

You're owned again, brah.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by bnb
Kros...

When you suggest we're not in Dafur because of race, then I wrongly assumed you meant that race was the reason we were not there. Seems we agree economics is the reason we're not there.

And while it's true the economic test affects people of certain races more than others that doesn't make the policy itself racist, unless racism is the basis of that discrimination.

I think that just about everybody who's posted here agrees we should be doing something. That it's shameful we haven't. Yet we prefer to play pin-the-blame on the donkey instead.

1. I'm not saying race is the ONLY reason. I'm saying race plays a part. And if anybody claims that race plays absolutely no role in global history, I'll show you a very sheltered person.

2. To take that a step further, if you beleive that race does not play a role in the history of the global economy as we see it today, I'll show you an uninformed person.

3. Now, to tie that in, as the way our global economy has been shaped into modern times, is it no wonder that Africa is an economic wasteland? Africa has a long history of its natural resources being stripped away to wealthier parts of the world (aka white countries).

4. So that brings us to our topic. Folks here now say race is not a factor but that there simply is no economic benefit to assisting Africa. Really, you don't say. How convenient.

[bnb]

well...i suppose if race plays a part in everything....then everything is racist.

really can't argue with that. It's just a rather strong label to affix to the Dafar indifference, IMO, though it sure is appropriate in many other places.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
You're simply continuing to embarrass yourself. Your last reply to StupidMoniker was just sad. You can't find any references to genocide in Somalia? Try googling. If that proves to be too much for you, here's a start: http://www.somaliawatch.org/archivefeb01/010202301.htm

Yea, I found that link. Which is why I added the "credible sources." Your owned.

Originally posted by bigtexxx
StupidMoniker then correctly states that we accomplished our mission in Somalia. You seemed to begrudgingly accept that, yet then say it wasn't enough, and make some bizarre comparison to giving coffee to a homeless man.

Huh, so you would list Somalia on the list of American success stories? Fact is, Somalia is still a disaster today with no formal government and is a breeding ground for Al Quida and other terrorists. If you think I'm being bizzarre, sorry.

Originally posted by bigtexxx
You better have some justification for claiming it's a race thing, or people will call you out. You can't just make people prove it's NOT a race thing until you've shown that it is. We're still waiting for you to do that.

Until you do something other than throwing condescending remarks my way, perhaps I'll concede. But...

I've justified my position over and over and over and over.

If you don't want to accept my arguements, thats fine. But not you or anybody else has countered my arugments with anything other than....nuh oh...your stupid.

I've demonstrated I'm serious about my arguments and I've provided support for them. You have simply thrown insults. And you say you are beneth me? Really?

Originally posted by bigtexxx
You're owned again, brah.

What is this about? I don't understand. It doesn't help your credibility. It makes you look foolish.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by bnb
well...i suppose if race plays a part in everything....then everything is racist.

really can't argue with that. It's just a rather strong label to affix to the Dafar indifference, IMO, though it sure is appropriate in many other places.

Yes, it is a strong statement but I initially made just one comment and Bigtexxx jumped all over me for it and then others jumped in. So I was forced to support my statement.

But that's reality. White America prefers not to talk about it because truth hurts.

So yes, I'm aruging race plays a part. I didn't say racist, you did.

Is everything racist? I'm illustrating a very long history of America's uninvolvement in Africa. Label it how you want. I'm just illustrating a point. And no, you can't argue with it because it's the truth. The only counter arguments I got were denials and insults which ignore the overwhelming historical facts . Therefore, their arguments only bolsters my argument about America's indifference in the matter.

[pippendagimp]

Here's the article alluded to. As detailed, NATO and it's mult-national corporate friends did seem to get a good return on their investment (costs associated with the attack). This attack was made while Clinton was in office and the operation itself was led by Supreme NATO Commander Wesley Clark. Whether race, goodwill, politics, or whatever plays any role in the decisions to go ahead with these kinds of operations, I can only speculate. But economics, on the other hand, is undoubtedly always a factor. In the end, it's all about bucks - the rest is conversation.


The Spoils of Another War
Five Years after Nato's Attack on Yugoslavia, its Administration in Kosovo is pushing through Mass Privatization

by Neil Clark

'Wars, conflict - it's all business," sighs Monsieur Verdoux in Charlie Chaplin's 1947 film of the same name. Many will not need to be convinced of the link between US corporations now busily helping themselves to Iraqi state assets and the military machine that prised Iraq open for global business. But what is less widely known is that a similar process is already well under way in a part of the world where B52s were not so long ago dropping bombs in another "liberation" mission.

The trigger for the US-led bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was, according to the standard western version of history, the failure of the Serbian delegation to sign up to the Rambouillet peace agreement. But that holds little more water than the tale that has Iraq responsible for last year's invasion by not cooperating with weapons inspectors.

The secret annexe B of the Rambouillet accord - which provided for the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia - was, as the Foreign Office minister Lord Gilbert later conceded to the defence select committee, deliberately inserted to provoke rejection by Belgrade.

But equally revealing about the west's wider motives is chapter four, which dealt exclusively with the Kosovan economy. Article I (1) called for a "free-market economy", and article II (1) for privatisation of all government-owned assets. At the time, the rump Yugoslavia - then not a member of the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO or European Bank for Reconstruction and Development - was the last economy in central-southern Europe to be uncolonised by western capital. "Socially owned enterprises", the form of worker self-management pioneered under Tito, still predominated.

Yugoslavia had publicly owned petroleum, mining, car and tobacco industries, and 75% of industry was state or socially owned. In 1997, a privatisation law had stipulated that in sell-offs, at least 60% of shares had to be allocated to a company's workers.

The high priests of neo-liberalism were not happy. At the Davos summit early in 1999, Tony Blair berated Belgrade, not for its handling of Kosovo, but for its failure to embark on a programme of "economic reform" - new-world-order speak for selling state assets and running the economy in the interests of multinationals.

In the 1999 Nato bombing campaign, it was state-owned companies - rather than military sites - that were specifically targeted by the world's richest nations. Nato only destroyed 14 tanks, but 372 industrial facilities were hit - including the Zastava car plant at Kragujevac, leaving hundreds of thousands jobless. Not one foreign or privately owned factory was bombed.

After the removal of Slobodan Milosevic, the west got the "fast-track" reforming government in Belgrade it had long desired. One of the first steps of the new administration was to repeal the 1997 privatisation law and allow 70% of a company to be sold to foreign investors - with just 15% reserved for workers. The government then signed up to the World Bank's programmes - effectively ending the country's financial independence.

Meanwhile, as the New York Times had crowed, "a war's glittering prize" awaited the conquerors. Kosovo has the second largest coal reserves in Europe, and enormous deposits of lignite, lead, zinc, gold, silver and petroleum.

The jewel is the enormous Trepca mine complex, whose 1997 value was estimated at $5bn. In an extraordinary smash and grab raid soon after the war, the complex was seized from its workers and managers by more than 2,900 Nato troops, who used teargas and rubber bullets.

Five years on from the Nato attack, the Kosovo Trust Agency (KTA), the body that operates under the jurisdiction of the UN Mission in Kosovo (Unmik) - is "pleased to announce" the programme to privatise the first 500 or so socially owned enterprises (SOEs) under its control. The closing date for bids passed last week: 10 businesses went under the hammer, including printing houses, a shopping mall, an agrobusiness and a soft-drinks factory. The Ferronikeli mining and metal-processing complex, with an annual capacity of 12,000 tonnes of nickel production, is being sold separately, with bids due by November 17.

To make the SOEs more attractive to foreign investors, Unmik has altered the way land is owned in Kosovo, allowing the KTA to sell 99-year leases with the businesses, which can be transferred or used as loans or security. Even Belgrade's pro-western gov ernment has called this a "robbery of state-owned land". For western companies waiting to swoop, there will be rich pickings indeed in what the KTA assures us is a "very investor-friendly" environment. But there is little talk of the rights of the moral owners of the enterprises - the workers, managers and citizens of the former Yugoslavia, whose property was effectively seized in the name of the "international community" and "economic reform".

As the corporate takeover of the ruins of Baghdad and Pristina proceeds apace, neither the "liberation" of Iraq nor the "humanitarian" bombing of Yugoslavia has proved Chaplin's cynical anti-hero to be wrong.

· Neil Clark is a writer and broadcaster specialising in Balkan affairs

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0921-05.htm

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
2) Darfur and other similar places in Africa simply have very little impact on the national security of the US and the quality of living in the US. Why then, should we go there?

I thought our goal was to spread democracy and freedom everywhere?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
Darfur and other similar places in Africa simply have very little impact on the national security of the US and the quality of living in the US. Why then, should we go there? Places like the Middle East, with terrorists, nuclear capabilities both in place and developing, as well as stronger militaries, do pose a security threat. When you add in the energy presence, and the worldwide economic impact of it, it is clear why we (and the rest of the coalition/world) take an interest in the Middle East. Very very simple. What are you talking about. There are a number of nations in Africa that have had more to do with terrorism in general, and Al Qaeda specifically than Iraq. Liberia, and Sudan are two of those nations.

It is vitally important for to be active in Africa to anyone who has done only the smallest amount of research on the subject.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
I thought our goal was to spread democracy and freedom everywhere?

Yea, TJ knew he was throwing in a load of crap on this one which is why he never bothered to come back to defend himself.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge

2) Darfur and other similar places in Africa simply have very little impact on the national security of the US and the quality of living in the US. Why then, should we go there? Places like the Middle East, with terrorists, nuclear capabilities both in place and developing, as well as stronger militaries, do pose a security threat. When you add in the energy presence, and the worldwide economic impact of it, it is clear why we (and the rest of the coalition/world) take an interest in the Middle East. Very very simple.

Wow, a realist. I will at least applaud TJ for his honesty.

This of course puts him at odds with the Bush Administration, as well as Bush doctrine 1.0 and 2.0, and with of some of the other massive hypocrites on this board who like to say that promoting democracy is the end-all be-all, until it is inconvenient for them to sa such in which case it falls by the wayside.

Of course, from a realist perspective, the invasion of Iraq was an unabated disaster, which is why it was opposed...but let's not rehash

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by SamFisher
This of course puts him at odds with the Bush Administration, as well as Bush doctrine 1.0 and 2.0,

I heard they have a software patch for 2.0 that resolves doctrinal hypocritical conflicts. Apparently it allows the system to avoid unauthorized access of inconvenient facts.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
I heard they have a software patch for 2.0 that resolves doctrinal hypocritical conflicts. Apparently it allows the system to avoid unauthorized access of inconvenient facts.

:D

[glynch]

Shouldn't the title of the thread have been WHAT AM I, BASSO, WAITING FOR? I guess the answer is that he is waiting for the poor and working stiffs of America to be ordered to go. I guess he is waiting for a draft to make him live up to his claimed ideals.

[StupidMoniker]

Do you really think the US will deploy troops to Darfur if basso enlists? :rolleyes:

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by glynch
Shouldn't the title of the thread have been WHAT AM I, BASSO, WAITING FOR? I guess the answer is that he is waiting for the poor and working stiffs of America to be ordered to go. I guess he is waiting for a draft to make him live up to his claimed ideals.

Technically, he (and Howard Dean) are actually waiting on the Euro-pee-ons to go - though he is not the hardliner on the issue that Dean is.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
Do you really think the US will deploy troops to Darfur if basso enlists? :rolleyes:

Yes; I'm confident that basso can post the janjaweed militamen under the table.